of saying that was --, no, no, it was giving essentially people a defense in a lawsuit if a gay couple sued, but the other issue is if you were to try to say no to someone or even on the basis of their religion, that's already covered under current law. the only group not covered under current or federal state law in arizona for nondiscrimination is gays and lesbians. everybody else is already covered. >> that's a separate issue, of course. just to go back to what you were saying, if you actually read the language of the law, it was a terribly drawn law. it was full of language like if there's a compelling state interest, then you can compel someone to even violate what he calls his religious conscience. the point is i think reasonable people can agree and we should find the areas of agreement, not disagreement. for instance, i do think we should agree that people should not be forced by government to do something that seriously violates conscience if it is based on a legitimate religious recognized in your church. however, that doesn't give you the right to ban access to what was call